Are milder steroids less damaging to the body?

**chris2wire** · 05-19-2005, 10:06 PM

This is kind of spurred on by the thread of the guy with the gym partner dieing, but its something Ive always wondered.

Mainly the heart is what Im talkign about...

Will milder roids like orals such as tbol or injectables like eq pose less of a health threat than stronger ones like test?

Sure, youd be shut down using the other ones and have no test, but, im talking about long term health effects here. Are they safer?

**kfont12** · 05-19-2005, 10:14 PM

Well Hgh Is The Worst Probably On The Heart Along With Clen And T3 And Dnp . But Test And Eq Really Should Not Have Much Diff Cardiac Sides From Each Other.

**Glock-19** · 05-19-2005, 10:22 PM

I wouldnt run dbombs if I thought my heart was weak.

**chris2wire** · 05-19-2005, 11:06 PM

See I figured the more androgenic ones could affect the heart. but, thats just a guess. its probably completely wrong....

i figured the roids that were just anabolic and barely androgenic at all would be safer. go ahead, tell me im a giant idiot.

**phwSSJ** · 05-19-2005, 11:09 PM

BUMP

...for someone who really knows the answer not someone just taking a stab at it!

**J.S.N.** · 05-20-2005, 12:39 AM

the main thing if you're worried about that is to cycle off for long periods of time. if there's an AAS that doesn't **** your lipid profiles and increase BP, i don't know about it. the longer you are on cycle, the harder it is on your body. if you spend half your life on cycle, that's half your life with high LDL/low HDL, hightened BP, increased liver enzymes etc.

**J.S.N.** · 05-20-2005, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by kfont12

Well Hgh Is The Worst Probably On The Heart Along With Clen And T3 And Dnp. But Test And Eq Really Should Not Have Much Diff Cardiac Sides From Each Other.

i have never heard anything like that at all.

in fact i double checked and it's totally untrue. it is good for your heart.

in fact, IGF-1, slin, and HGH would be great anabolics to take if one is worried about health risks.

**mule1983** · 05-20-2005, 01:15 PM

in fact, IGF-1, slin, and HGH would be great anabolics to take if one is worried about health risks.

im not saying you are wrong, but i dont use slin because of the health risks... like being dead from going into shock. I think that slin is the most dangerous anabolic although it can be used safely there is a much greater chance of having a serious problem like death

**J.S.N.** · 05-20-2005, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by mule1983

im not saying you are wrong, but i dont use slin because of the health risks... like being dead from going into shock. I think that slin is the most dangerous anabolic although it can be used safely there is a much greater chance of having a serious problem like death

very true, it has the greatet acute risks.

however if used responsibly it doesn't present much in the way of long-term risks.

**Teegunn** · 05-20-2005, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by John Stamos' Nephew

i have never heard anything like that at all.

in fact i double checked and it's totally untrue. it is good for your heart.

in fact, IGF-1, slin, and HGH would be great anabolics to take if one is worried about health risks.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I have been researching GH for about 6 months now and I can't remember reading where GH is hard on the heart. If anything, I think it may be just the opposite. In fact, my aging (87) grandfather has a bad heart, lungs, etc... his body is just breaking down from old age - and I often wonder how he would react to taking a 1iu ED dose of GH. My bet is that it would help him a lot.

**TheMindOfRoss** · 05-20-2005, 11:37 PM

I will not say too much regarding this issue, as it has been higly debated lately. In my opinion, all research indicates that raising TESTOSTERONE to supraphysiological levels is more damaging and confusing to the body than consuming other testosterone DERIVATIVES--ALL steroids are testosterone DERIVATIVES.

Testosterone has MANY FUNCTIONS in the body OTHER than building muscle. Sometimes, as we can see, it is not wise to play around.

ALL steroids possess inherent risks. Some greater than others--this is true.

**J.S.N.** · 05-21-2005, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by Teegunn

That's exactly what I was thinking. I have been researching GH for about 6 months now and I can't remember reading where GH is hard on the heart. If anything, I think it may be just the opposite. In fact, my aging (87) grandfather has a bad heart, lungs, etc... his body is just breaking down from old age - and I often wonder how he would react to taking a 1iu ED dose of GH. My bet is that it would help him a lot.

it can be very hard to get older people to try new things, but i would def. encourage him to do so.

**Teegunn** · 05-21-2005, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by John Stamos' Nephew

it can be very hard to get older people to try new things, but i would def. encourage him to do so.

Yeah, I can't see that it would hurt at this point. He has lost over 60 lbs the last few months. Very little, to no appetite. Many of his organs are basically semi-shut down. He is actually a little better right now, but his body is shot and doesn't have much left in it. He also has a lot of edema in his legs. That would be my biggest concern with him trying GH because GH could increase the swelling some. Although the swelling is from his heart being to weak to pump properly. I am not going to try and convince him to start GH though. However, He probably would be all for it considering that the doctors have had him so jacked up on so many different meds for years and years. He's willing to try anything at this point.

**Nicky B** · 05-21-2005, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by kfont12

Well Hgh Is The Worst Probably On The Heart Along With Clen And T3 And Dnp. But Test And Eq Really Should Not Have Much Diff Cardiac Sides From Each Other.

Well that is true in a sense if you took high doses like 10-16iu's eachday like some pro bb's do.

**Ntpadude** · 05-21-2005, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by chris2wire

This is kind of spurred on by the thread of the guy with the gym partner dieing, but its something Ive always wondered.

Mainly the heart is what Im talkign about...

Will milder roids like orals such as tbol or injectables like eq pose less of a health threat than stronger ones like test?

Sure, youd be shut down using the other ones and have no test, but, im talking about long term health effects here. Are they safer?

Your heart actually improves condition, form and other features just like any other muscle when on steroids . However what is more dangerous is using non-aromatasable steroids (the non-tests) so when your test levels crash, so do your estrogen levels. When your estrogen levels crash, so does your blood pressure increase, your cholesterol and triglierides goes thru the roof. If you do too much long term cycling... you never allow your body a break from high cholesterol and it begins to plaque up. This is one reason for recommending test be added to all cycles... test and its estrogen help keep your cholesterol in check. Arimidex , femera and others cause you to go to zero estrogen which once again is bad bad bad. The best for your cholesterol levels, triglicerides and blood pressure issues is to include test in all cycles, dont over do it too badly like no more then 500/600 mg, and rely solely on nolvadex as an anti-e. Nolvadex is great because it directly lowers bad cholesterol, increases good cholesterol and in high levels like 40 mg per day, it can actually de-plaque and remove hardening build ups in your blood vessels.